A language exchange program: sustainability innovation in language and culture engagement

The Language Exchange Program between the UPM and UBCO acts as a model for sustainability innovation in language and culture engagement as the students can interact with native speakers in communication tasks. This interdisciplinary initiative supports the latest methodological principles observed in the Common European Framework for Languages [1], such as autonomous and lifelong learning, self-assessment and peer-assessment as well as the incorporation of new technologies to the learning process

A multidisciplinary reference framework to support innovative design, implementation and assessment of chronic care models

Hoy en día, por primera vez en la historia, la mayor parte de la población podrá vivir hasta los sesenta años y más (United Nations, 2015). Sin embargo, todavía existe poca evidencia que demuestre que las personas mayores, estén viviendo con mejor salud que sus padres, a la misma edad, ya que la mayoría de los problemas de salud en edades avanzadas están asociados a las enfermedades crónicas (WHO, 2015). Los sistemas sanitarios de los países desarrollados funcionan adecuadamente cuando se trata del cuidado de enfermedades agudas, pero no son lo suficientemente eficaces en la gestión de las enfermedades crónicas. Durante la última década, se han realizado esfuerzos para mejorar esta gestión, por medio de la utilización de estrategias de prevención y de reenfoque de la provisión de los servicios de atención para la salud (Kane et al. 2005). Según una revisión sistemática de modelos de cuidado de salud, comisionada por el sistema nacional de salud Británico, pocos modelos han conceptualizado cuáles son los componentes que hay que utilizar para proporcionar un cuidado crónico efectivo, y estos componentes no han sido suficientemente estructurados y articulados. Por lo tanto, no hay suficiente evidencia sobre el impacto real de cualquier modelo existente en la actualidad (Ham, 2006). Las innovaciones podrían ayudar a conseguir mejores diagnósticos, tratamientos y gestión de pacientes crónicos, así como a dar soporte a los profesionales y a los pacientes en el cuidado. Sin embargo, la forma en las que estas innovaciones se proporcionan no es lo suficientemente eficiente, efectiva y amigable para el usuario. Para mejorar esto, hace falta crear equipos de trabajo y estrategias multidisciplinares. En conclusión, hacen falta actividades que permitan conseguir que las innovaciones sean utilizadas en los sistemas de salud que quieren mejorar la gestión del cuidado crónico, para que sea posible: 1) traducir la “atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia” en “conocimiento factible”; 2) hacer frente a la complejidad de la atención sanitaria a través de una investigación multidisciplinaria; 3) identificar una aproximación sistemática para que se establezcan intervenciones innovadoras en el cuidado de salud. El marco de referencia desarrollado en este trabajo de investigación es un intento de aportar estas mejoras. Las siguientes hipótesis han sido propuestas: Hipótesis 1: es posible definir un proceso de traducción que convierta un modelo de cuidado crónico en una descripción estructurada de objetivos, requisitos e indicadores clave de rendimiento. Hipótesis 2: el proceso de traducción, si se ejecuta a través de elementos basados en la evidencia, multidisciplinares y de orientación económica, puede convertir un modelo de cuidado crónico en un marco descriptivo, que define el ciclo de vida de soluciones innovadoras para el cuidado de enfermedades crónicas. Hipótesis 3: es posible definir un método para evaluar procesos, resultados y capacidad de desarrollar habilidades, y asistir equipos multidisciplinares en la creación de soluciones innovadoras para el cuidado crónico. Hipótesis 4: es posible dar soporte al desarrollo de soluciones innovadoras para el cuidado crónico a través de un marco de referencia y conseguir efectos positivos, medidos en indicadores clave de rendimiento. Para verificar las hipótesis, se ha definido una aproximación metodológica compuesta de cuatro Fases, cada una asociada a una hipótesis. Antes de esto, se ha llevado a cabo una “Fase 0”, donde se han analizado los antecedentes sobre el problema (i.e. adopción sistemática de la innovación en el cuidado crónico) desde una perspectiva multi-dominio y multi-disciplinar. Durante la fase 1, se ha desarrollado un Proceso de Traducción del Conocimiento, elaborado a partir del JBI Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) model of evidence-based healthcare (Pearson, 2005), y sobre el cual se han definido cuatro Bloques de Innovación. Estos bloques consisten en una descripción de elementos innovadores, definidos en la fase 0, que han sido añadidos a los cuatros elementos que componen el modelo JBI. El trabajo llevado a cabo en esta fase ha servido también para definir los materiales que el proceso de traducción tiene que ejecutar. La traducción que se ha llevado a cabo en la fase 2, y que traduce la mejor evidencia disponible de cuidado crónico en acción: resultado de este proceso de traducción es la parte descriptiva del marco de referencia, que consiste en una descripción de un modelo de cuidado crónico (se ha elegido el Chronic Care Model, Wagner, 1996) en términos de objetivos, especificaciones e indicadores clave de rendimiento y organizada en tres ciclos de innovación (diseño, implementación y evaluación). Este resultado ha permitido verificar la segunda hipótesis. Durante la fase 3, para demostrar la tercera hipótesis, se ha desarrollado un método-mixto de evaluación de equipos multidisciplinares que trabajan en innovaciones para el cuidado crónico. Este método se ha creado a partir del método mixto usado para la evaluación de equipo multidisciplinares translacionales (Wooden, 2013). El método creado añade una dimensión procedural al marco. El resultado de esta fase consiste, por lo tanto, en una primera versión del marco de referencia, lista para ser experimentada. En la fase 4, se ha validado el marco a través de un caso de estudio multinivel y con técnicas de observación-participante como método de recolección de datos. Como caso de estudio se han elegido las actividades de investigación que el grupo de investigación LifeStech ha desarrollado desde el 2008 para mejorar la gestión de la diabetes, actividades realizadas en un contexto internacional. Los resultados demuestran que el marco ha permitido mejorar las actividades de trabajo en distintos niveles: 1) la calidad y cantidad de las publicaciones; 2) se han conseguido dos contratos de investigación sobre diabetes: el primero es un proyecto de investigación aplicada, el segundo es un proyecto financiado para acelerar las innovaciones en el mercado; 3) a través de los indicadores claves de rendimiento propuestos en el marco, una prueba de concepto de un prototipo desarrollado en un proyecto de investigación ha sido transformada en una evaluación temprana de una intervención eHealth para el manejo de la diabetes, que ha sido recientemente incluida en Repositorio de prácticas innovadoras del Partenariado de Innovación Europeo en Envejecimiento saludable y activo. La verificación de las 4 hipótesis ha permitido demonstrar la hipótesis principal de este trabajo de investigación: es posible contribuir a crear un puente entre la atención sanitaria y la innovación y, por lo tanto, mejorar la manera en que el cuidado crónico sea procurado en los sistemas sanitarios. ABSTRACT Nowadays, for the first time in history, most people can expect to live into their sixties and beyond (United Nations, 2015). However, little evidence suggests that older people are experiencing better health than their parents, and most of the health problems of older age are linked to Chronic Diseases (WHO, 2015). The established health care systems in developed countries are well suited to the treatment of acute diseases but are mostly inadequate for dealing with CDs. Healthcare systems are challenging the burden of chronic diseases by putting more emphasis on the prevention of disease and by looking for new ways to reorient the provision of care (Kane et al., 2005). According to an evidence-based review commissioned by the British NHS Institute, few models have conceptualized effective components of care for CDs and these components have been not structured and articulated. “Consequently, there is limited evidence about the real impact of any of the existing models” (Ham, 2006). Innovations could support to achieve better diagnosis, treatment and management for patients across the continuum of care, by supporting health professionals and empowering patients to take responsibility. However, the way they are delivered is not sufficiently efficient, effective and consumer friendly. The improvement of innovation delivery, involves the creation of multidisciplinary research teams and taskforces, rather than just working teams. There are several actions to improve the adoption of innovations from healthcare systems that are tackling the epidemics of CDs: 1) Translate Evidence-Based Healthcare (EBH) into actionable knowledge; 2) Face the complexity of healthcare through multidisciplinary research; 3) Identify a systematic approach to support effective implementation of healthcare interventions through innovation. The framework proposed in this research work is an attempt to provide these improvements. The following hypotheses have been drafted: Hypothesis 1: it is possible to define a translation process to convert a model of chronic care into a structured description of goals, requirements and key performance indicators. Hypothesis 2: a translation process, if executed through evidence-based, multidisciplinary, holistic and business-oriented elements, can convert a model of chronic care in a descriptive framework, which defines the whole development cycle of innovative solutions for chronic disease management. Hypothesis 3: it is possible to design a method to evaluate processes, outcomes and skill acquisition capacities, and assist multidisciplinary research teams in the creation of innovative solutions for chronic disease management. Hypothesis 4: it is possible to assist the development of innovative solutions for chronic disease management through a reference framework and produce positive effects, measured through key performance indicators. In order to verify the hypotheses, a methodological approach, composed of four Phases that correspond to each one of the stated hypothesis, was defined. Prior to this, a “Phase 0”, consisting in a multi-domain and multi-disciplinary background analysis of the problem (i.e.: systematic adoption of innovation to chronic care), was carried out. During phase 1, in order to verify the first hypothesis, a Knowledge Translation Process (KTP) was developed, starting from the JBI Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) model of evidence-based healthcare was used (Pearson, 2005) and adding Four Innovation Blocks. These blocks represent an enriched description, added to the JBI model, to accelerate the transformation of evidence-healthcare through innovation; the innovation blocks are built on top of the conclusions drawn after Phase 0. The background analysis gave also indication on the materials and methods to be used for the execution of the KTP, carried out during phase 2, that translates the actual best available evidence for chronic care into action: this resulted in a descriptive Framework, which is a description of a model of chronic care (the Chronic Care Model was chosen, Wagner, 1996) in terms of goals, specified requirements and Key Performance Indicators, and articulated in the three development cycles of innovation (i.e. design, implementation and evaluation). Thanks to this result the second hypothesis was verified. During phase 3, in order to verify the third hypothesis, a mixed-method to evaluate multidisciplinary teams working on innovations for chronic care, was created, based on a mixed-method used for the evaluation of Multidisciplinary Translational Teams (Wooden, 2013). This method adds a procedural dimension to the descriptive component of the Framework, The result of this phase consisted in a draft version of the framework, ready to be tested in a real scenario. During phase 4, a single and multilevel case study, with participant-observation data collection, was carried out, in order to have a complete but at the same time multi-sectorial evaluation of the framework. The activities that the LifeStech research group carried out since 2008 to improve the management of diabetes have been selected as case study. The results achieved showed that the framework allowed to improve the research activities in different directions: the quality and quantity of the research publications that LifeStech has issued, have increased substantially; 2 project grants to improve the management of diabetes, have been assigned: the first is a grant funding applied research while the second is about accelerating innovations into the market; by using the assessment KPIs of the framework, the proof of concept validation of a prototype developed in a research project was transformed into an early stage assessment of innovative eHealth intervention for Diabetes Management, which has been recently included in the repository of innovative practice of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Health Ageing initiative. The verification of the 4 hypotheses lead to verify the main hypothesis of this research work: it is possible to contribute to bridge the gap between healthcare and innovation and, in turn, improve the way chronic care is delivered by healthcare systems.

The Policy Framework for the Promotion of Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in Europe: a Critical Assessment. Bruges European Economic Policy (BEEP) Briefing 19/2008

This paper reviews the current EU policy framework in view of its impact on hydrogen and fuel cell development. It screens EU energy policies, EU regulatory policies and EU spending policies. Key questions addressed are as follows: To what extent is the current policy framework conducive to hydrogen and fuel cell development? What barriers and inconsistencies can be identified? How can policies potentially promote hydrogen and fuel cells in Europe, taking into account the complex evolution of such a disruptive technology? How should the EU policy framework be reformed in view of a strengthened and more coherent approach? The paper concludes that the current EU policy framework does not hinder hydrogen development. Yet it does not constitute a strong push factor either. EU energy policies have the strongest impact on hydrogen and fuel cell development even though their potential is still underexploited. Regulatory policies have a weak but positive impact on hydrogen. EU spending policies show some inconsistencies. However, the large scale market development of hydrogen and fuel cells will require a new policy approach which comprises technology specific support as well as a supportive policy framework with a special regional dimension.

Sustainability, Resource Efficiency and Competitiveness. An Assessment of Resource Efficiency Policies in the European Union. Bruges European Economic Research Papers (BEER) 32/2015.

Addressing high and volatile natural resource prices, uncertain supply prospects, reindustrialization attempts and environmental damages related to resource use, resource efficiency has evolved into a highly debated proposal among academia, policy makers, firms and international financial institutions (IFIs). In 2011, the European Union (EU) declared resource efficiency as one of its seven flagship initiatives in its Europe 2020 strategy. This paper contributes to the discussions by assessing its key initiative, the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (EC 2011 571), following two streams of evaluation. In a first step, resource efficiency is linked to two theoretical frameworks regarding sustainability, (i) the sustainability triangle (consisting of economic, social and ecological dimensions) and (ii) balanced sustainability (combining weak and strong sustainability). Subsequently, both sustainability frameworks are used to assess to which degree the Roadmap follows the concept of sustainability. It can be concluded that it partially respects the sustainability triangle as well as balanced sustainability, primarily lacking a social dimension. In a second step, following Steger and Bleischwitz (2009), the impact of resource efficiency on competitiveness as advocated in the Roadmap is empirically evaluated. Using an Arellano–Bond dynamic panel data model reveals no robust impact of resource efficiency on competiveness in the EU between 2004 and 2009 – a puzzling result. Further empirical research and enhanced data availability are needed to better understand the impacts of resource efficiency on competitiveness on the macroeconomic, microeconomic and industry level. In that regard, strengthening the methodologies of resource indicators seem essential. Last but certainly not least, political will is required to achieve the transition of the EU-economy into a resource efficient future.